365bet娱乐

74
vernaculars, we are not competent to hazard any guess;
but supported as we are by a South Indian Scholar, we
think that the word 'Balacarita' in the passage is
purposely used, suggesting the drama of that name.
It may be contended that the reference may be to
another Balacarita; but we have not yet come across any
other Balacarita, and again, especially in dramatic
literature two works bearing identical titles are not found.
We think there is no reason to infer the existence of
another B盲l by Bh膩sa dealing with R膩ma's childhood.
The verse quoted by Vi艣van膩tha in his Sahityadarpa峁嘺
as from a B膩lacarita, viz.
啶夃い啷嵿じ啶距す啶距い啶苦ざ啶�啶� 啶掂い啷嵿じ 啶むさ 啶�啶距げ啷嵿く啶� 啶� 啶�啶多�嵿く啶む�� 啷�
啶�啶� 啶灌ぐ啷嵿し啶掂た啶粪ぞ啶︵ぞ啶�啷嵿く啶距ぎ啶距�曕�嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶� 啶�啷佮�椸お啶ㄠ�嵿ぎ啶ㄠ�� 啷�
( [耻迟蝉腻丑腻迟颈艣补测补峁� vatsa tava b膩lya峁� ca pa艣yata岣� |
mama har峁�avi峁Ｄ乨膩bhy膩m膩kr膩nta峁� yugapanmana岣� ||
(] Kane's Edition, App. E., p. 73).
may very well find a place in our play. It is the
commentator of the Sahityadarpana that has given the
reference (which made MM. Dr. G. Sastri to postulate
the existence of another Bal by Bh膩sa) in his prefatory
remarks attached to the verse, which read as follows:
啶班ぞ啶�啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�� 啶�啶班ざ啷佮ぐ啶距ぎ啶膏�嵿く啷嬥�曕�嵿い啶苦ぐ啶苦く啶�啷� [r膩ma峁� prati para艣ur膩masyoktiriyam] ' and it is quite possible that he may
not be right. The reference ought to have been a
啶膏�傕�曕ぐ啷嵿し啶｀じ啷嵿く啷嬥い啶苦ぐ啶苦く啶�啷� | [sa峁僰ar峁�a峁嘺syotiriyam | ] We locate the stanza 啶夃い啷嵿じ啶距す啶距い啶苦ざ啶�啶� [耻迟蝉腻丑腻迟颈艣补测补峁� ] etc. in our
text at p. 42 after the last speech by Damodara and before
the stage direction ( 啶膏�傕�曕ぐ啷嵿し啶｀じ啷嵿い啷堗�� 啶膏す 啶ㄠた啶粪�嵿�曕�嵿ぐ啶距え啷嵿い啶� 啷� ) [sa峁僰ar峁�a峁嘺stai岣� saha ni峁�kr膩nta岣� | ) ] There is an
occasion for the concern shown by Sa峁僰ar峁�a峁嘺 for the
safety of Damodara: Cf. again
(
Samkar峁�a峁嘺's speech on page 49; and further, Damodara
has been addressed as 'Vatsa' by Samkar峁�a峁嘺. So we
think the verse fits in well with the context shown and
hence the commentator on the Sahityadarpana is
unhappily wrong. There are many instances of such
mistakes by commentators.鲁 Thus, assigning a suitable
reads 啶︵ざ啶班ぅ啶膏�嵿�� [诲补艣补谤补迟丑补蝉测补 ] for
1 Critical Study, p. 21. 2 Khuperkar, however,
啶�啶班ざ啷佮ぐ啶距ぎ啶膏�嵿く [辫补谤补艣耻谤腻尘补蝉测补 ] in 啶班ぞ啶�啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶む�� 啶�啶班ざ啷佮ぐ啶距ぎ啶膏�嵿ぅ啷嬥�曕�嵿い啶苦ぐ啶苦く啶�啷� 啷� ( [r膩ma峁� prati para艣ur膩masthoktiriyam | (] Lokasiksana, 5, p. 326 ). cf. also the
Sahityadarpana, com. R膩macarana, Bombay, 1922, p, 304.
3 There are many
instances of similar mistakes by commentators, e. g. st. 96 from Damodaragupta's
Kutttin墨mata has been quoted in the Kavya Prakasa (X. 452) as an illustration
of Atisayokti, but most of the commentators on the Kavya Prak膩艣a are wrong in
tracing the quotation. According to Kamal膩kara Bhatta, the verse is from the
M膩lati-Madhava, while Mahe艣vara wrongly reading Malavi for Malati in the verse,
refers it to the M膩lavik膩gnimitra. etc. is given in the Kavya Prak膩艣a
(X. 453 ) as an illustration of Prativast奴pam膩; but one commentator takes the verse
as the speech of Vatsar膩ja to Ratnavali, while another takes it as the lamentation of
the Pandavas after Draupadi was engaged as Sairandhr墨. Prof. Paranjape has given
many instances in his introduction to the Pratima, pp. XX-XXIII.